Scott 225 - Ink Smear Or Unlisted Double Transfer

I found a 225 that had a marking in 'UNITED' that looked a bit like other double transfer markings from that series. My first inclination was to believe it a smear of sorts, especially since Scott doern'ty list one for a #225...that is until I found another almost identical 'smear' which had me then wondering whether it could actually be a double transfer (unlisted) or something else. What do you think?

I agree. Showing two copies with the identical flaw clinches it nicely - points to a plate flaw, whether a double transfer or damage, or ?, etc. It would be good to see the entire stamp.

Being "unlisted" in Scott doesn't count for very much. I have always viewed their U.S. Specialized catalog as the "Scott semi-specialized catalog", and thus one needs to go to the more detailed monographs and society journals for the next level of detail such as this

Unfortunately, your stamp is wee bit too early to be included in Loran C. French's "Encyclopedia of Plate Varieties on U.S. Bureau-Printed Postage Stamps", but it proves the point that Scott lists only the most spectacular or noteworthy plate flaws.

John, thanks for your input. I have included a scan of both stamps and a scan of one pointing out other marks that appear on these two stamps that don't appear on any other 225 I've looked at.

John, when I say the markings are similar to others in that series I mean like these...

How does one differentiate between a plate variety and some kind of 'regular' plate wiping issue? Seeing similar marks on different denominations makes it seem likely to be some kind of plate wiping issue. But how can one be sure without having the actual plates to examine? I can imagine a universe where wiping in the same way over, say, the UNITED STATES POSTAGE area of this series of stamps may result in the markings that you see. Still, how can one really be sure? Perhaps if you had two stamps, each from the same plate position (and plate), and one showing the markings, and the other not, might indicate a wiping issue.

Frankly, I would lean towards a plate issue (if there are multiple examples of the same markings), until someone can show with some certainty that they are from a plate wiping issue.

Either way, interesting!!

I would definitely call it a constant plate variety but not a double transfer.

i agree with sinclair2010......it is some type of constant variety, but not a dt. if it shows up on any proofs of the issued stamps that would confirm it. until then poor plate wiping cannot be imo totally ruled out.

The absence of finding the damage on the plate proof, does not exclude progressive damage as the plate was used.